The Bible and "Lying"

To be precise the Bible never describes what lying is, so the reason it can't be said to condemn lying is because, "The bridge should stay up," doesn't count as civil engineering.

Like yeah okay the bridge should stay up, but with what? Do I use wood? Steel? Stone? Mortar? How many bolts do I need?

Further, it's one thing when a whole book allegedly on civil engineering is "Chapter 1: the bridge should stay up. The end." It's quite another when the rest of the book is a series of detailed instructions for saboteurs. Yeah the topic is bridges, but it seems that "staying up" is there for misdirection. "See we want bridges to stay up!" Do you now? Then why do you have so many instructions for bombs and strategic places to drill?

This is a book which includes specific instructions about how to weave fibre into cloth. It includes precise geneologies. It says if a man slaps you, to turn the other cheek. When it all of a sudden retreats into foggy abstracts when it comes to lying, you should become suspicious. At best they didn't much care for the topic. Not interested.  The Bible's heroes lie repeatedly and "God" rewards them for doing so. The term [neighbour] is meant rather literally.

In the context of bridges, the smokescreen is a bit odd. In the context of deception, of course the first thing a liar is going to do is condemn lying and claim to be particularly honest. Of course! Naturally! I'm pretty sure it's mandated directly from physical law, like gravity! 

Indeed if you're honest you should almost always go out your way to avoid the topic of your own trustworthiness, precisely because liars are so obsessed with claiming especial virtue. On the contrary, it should be taken for granted that you aren't trustworthy. The honourable thing to do is make it as easy and as quick as possible to verify what you're saying. 

You do the opposite of saying you're infallible, especially if you really are infallible. If you're wise, you don't have to fear anyone checking your work. Show your work and take the risk, because you're claiming it's not much of a risk. If the reader isn't themselves a liar or crazy, they will find that you have reasons for the things you say. 

Plus, if you're a temporal being and thus not infallible, getting your readers into a habit of checking your work will mean they catch the error when you inevitably make an error. Don't be so weak you fear being debunked. First, do no epistemic harm or something along those lines. Turns out scribes did in fact mis-copy the Bible. Haha, whoops. There goes your perfect infallibility - which was obviously fake in the first place because it claimed to be infallible. 

E.g. the Bible does say not to bear false witness against your neighbour. The hyper-Christian Woke take this to heart: they bear false witness against themselves instead. Fully Biblical. 

E.g. Christians everywhere admire technical honesty. "I didn't say I was going to open the window. I just asked if you wanted it open, lol!" Meanwhile they condemn novels and plays as [lying]. The sin, however, is not exactly bearing false witness. The sin is successful deception. Novels and plays do not deceive anyone who isn't asking to be mislead. It doesn't say up front it's all a lie, it's only implied so heavily literally nobody doesn't know; the term 'novel' refers to the fact you made it all up. Technical honesty is deceptive; the liar phrases it that way because they know it implies things they didn't strictly speaking say.

Christians who behave this way are being strategically autistic. Pretending to not know things they in fact know; bearing false witness against themselves.

Morality vs. Mores & Psychological Egoism

I shouldn't have to prove that respecting the local mores or manners is a cooperative necessity, so I won't. However, since the proof is based on cooperativeness, if the mores are inherently treacherous or deviant, the necessity doesn't apply. Domains and ranges.

Christians, due to Athenian influence, started trying investigate universal mores. Surely a system of manners that applies in all times and all places is better than some local peccadilloes? 

Well, spoiler: no. The universal law is that local conditions matter and you ought to adapt to them. Rejecting local conditions is local Gnosticism. You're supposed to look, see and know. You're supposed to be the opposite of an autistic-mode narcissist. Pretending local conditions don't matter is next door to pretending they don't exist; a lie. Gnosticism is a lie, so it's a proper subset of Satanism.

As I keep saying, Christianity is inherently Gnostic and if it appears otherwise it's because it's compromising its own values. Gnosticism proper is merely rejecting "physics" as too local to be morally relevant; using an unusually broad version of [local]. In fact physics is a divine instrument. Turns out, in shocking news, Creation was created by the Creator. 

Physics, seen properly, is one of the most beautiful things observable, and it's not even close. it displays perfect unity of form and function - the function is the form, and the form is the function. Transcendentally gorgeous. It's also unimaginably consistent. Harmonious across inconceivable gulfs. Every physical law sings in perfect symphony with every other. The greatest composer is here. Your "Bachs" and "Beethovens" are pathetic wannabes by comparison. Feeble echoes of the the depthless glory of physics.
Utter slavish fanaticism for Logic, well beyond anything a human is capable of.
Math and physics is seeing the mind of God? Yes. Simply, yes. Turns out they were on the ball there. 

Universal morality is anti-physics.

Universal morality, styled these days as simply morality, is a lie. Local mores arise because they work better than the alternatives that were discarded. It's prudence, not "morality." 

P.S. Frankly it's super weird that morality has its own quale. Why do moral things feel different than non-moral things? Is this the power of being raised in a lie? Is this the incomprehensibly adaptive nature of the qualia system?

The idea that "pragmatism" is somehow opposed to morality is absurd. The idea that self-sacrifice can possibly be moral is absurd. Let's do the self-sacrifice thing as a concrete example. Spoilers: if can be good if it's not really self-sacrifice.

Example one: you really value your town, so you lay down your life trying to kill some criminals who are afflicting the town. Is this self-sacrifice? Nope. This person valued a non-criminal town above their own life. To them, this is simply a good trade. Being prudent and pragmatic. The idea that everyone always values their life above all other things is a lie. A secular-materialist lie. Also a narcissist/Gnostic lie. 

Example two: you really value your town, so you give away your entire life savings to the town. Is this self-sacrifice? Nope. Indeed you're likely to make your investment back with interest. If the town deserves the love (you're not plain delusional) then they will spend it wisely, and you will benefit. Further, someone in town is likely to respond to your "altruism" with "altruism" of their own. If two or three such folk exist, you will end up being given more than you gave away. It was prudent and pragmatic. Even if it's not materially pragmatic, if you did it, it's because you valued giving the money away more than keeping it, and it was a good trade.

If you commit self-sacrifice and it's a good trade, it's not sacrifice. If you commit self-sacrifice and it's not a good trade, then you dun fukt up. That was just stupid. It's not a moral thing, it's an ROI thing. There's a small part of universal morality that's true: there is always a tension between the long term and the short term. The things called "evil" have short-term benefits and long-term costs. The things called "not-evil" are goods because they have short-term costs and long-term benefits. 2 > 1. It's not a moral thing, it's just accounting. Short-term "altruism" is feeding parasites. "Altruism" with long-term benefits isn't altruistic, now is it? Is the stock market a endless font of altruism? Morality isn't a moral thing. Self-sacrifice is always thing-called-evil. Don't reject the incomprehensible generosity of the heavens: do as you're told and be rich.

Pragmatism: it's true that things-Americas-call-pragmatism are opposed to cooperation and long termism. Parasites love promoting self-sacrifice, because you have to sacrifice to a parasite or it will die. Pragmatism arose to try to counter these pro-"altrusim" deviants, but it was co-opted. The incentive is for parasites to say that feeding the parasite is pragmatic for the parasite (hardly untrue) and thus co-opt pragmatism as letting the parasites be pragmatic. 

Example three: you donate to a homeless bum. You don't see them again and don't see any return. Is this altruism? Self-sacrifice?
If what you wanted is for the bum to do bum things with the money, then it was a good trade. You wanted the money less than you wanted the bum to have it.
If you didn't want the bum to have the money, then you're an idiot. Congrats on accelerating his alcohol-induced cognitive collapse in exchange for making yourself marginally more immiserated. I guess that's exactly what you deserved, dumbass. 

Subjectivity is subjective and therefore psychological egoism is true. Nobody can be altruistic or unselfish. It's logically impossible. You values drive your decisions - that's what it means to be a value. You can't feel the values of others, because that's the nature of subjective ontology. If the dude in example 3 knows the bum is only going to do bum things with the money, then he doesn't give the money away. Whether he "should" or not is irrelevant, because he's not going to, end of story. (Also, if it isn't yet clear, he really shouldn't.)

If you decide you want to be "self-sacrificing" that means you value the acts of "sacrifice" more than you values the things you give away. It still isn't unselfish. It's logically impossible to be unselfish: psychological egoism is true.

Because self-sacrifice is impossible, if someone convinces you to do something that feels self-sacrificing, it just means you were scammed. You didn't know the real situation. They're a parasite. Sacrifice for thee but not for me.

Check: if selflessness is the ideal, who can you give things to? An unselfish bum would refuse the money. If everyone is unselfish, all that happens is everyone starves to death. Self-sacrifice is a lie. Selflessness is a lie. 

Self-sacrifice is death, pain, and failure. Its Communism. It's irresponsible. It's devil-worship. Anyone claiming you ought to be self-sacrificing is dishonourable.

 

With the exception of the abstract tension between long and short term, mores are necessarily local because local conditions exist. Local customs, as I hope your quale agrees, are not [morality]. Customary merely means how it's usually done. This is always for a good reason, though occasionally the good reason is, "The locals are foolish." In the long term and on average customs are wise because of natural selection. In the short term and the specific there is no such guarantee. 

Christianity tried to overcome these solecisms by appealing to some universal more, but this is (as expected given the nature of the cult) ass backwards. Indeed if you look at specific examples of these solecisms, they're almost always already appealing to a more universal principle, and that's why they're not working.

Put another way, if your local mores are not prudent, then you die out. The more local and particular they are, the better they will serve you. By contrast, the more "universal" you try to make them, the worse they will perform. As such, it seems Christianity said self-sacrifice is universally moral by back-propagation: only a suicide would want to respect a universal morality, and thus the highest ideal must be self-sacrifice.

If you are correctly "moral," you die.
Is this a mistake? Some foolish oversight?
"Beloved, never avenge yourselves, but leave it to the wrath of God, for it is written, “Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord.” To the contrary, “if your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink; for by so doing you will heap burning coals on his head.”" Romans 12:17-21
In short, not only don't defend yourself, not only don't secure your shit, but actively assist those who wish to harm you.
Hey, uh, how did Jesus' story end, again? And he's supposed to be the paragon of morality?

Thus we can see it's probably not a coincidence that Christian nations are ethno-masochist. 

Thus we can see it's probably not a coincidence that Unitarian Universalism is one of the most destructive sects of Christianity. 

In retrospect, duh. Un-self-ishness un-selfs you. No self, no existence. Death. Annihilation. In Reality, self-sacrifice leads to the lake of fire and sulfur, which is the second death.

Morality, in the modern sense of universal morality, is a sin.

P.P.S. In the previous semi-working 1950s version, you were allowed to accept things if they were unselfishly offered to you. The idea was that nobody is competent to take care of themselves due to the whole [judge in your own case] mechanic, but others could be trusted to take care of you. In theory, this system lets everyone get their needs met, so is not, in practice, unselfish. Unfortunately, as the Boomers demonstrated, this is false. The system immediately broke down, because it doesn't work. Turns out you know your own needs and nobody else knows your needs, because subjectivity is subjective. It's fine as long as you're responsible and pay for the things you want instead of trying to get them for free from "unselfish" individuals. 

I rather suspect the 1950s form of twisted nonsense is exactly what Christianity was designed to promote. It rewards narcissists who rarely even remember you have needs at all. They become bottomless pits of "altruism" and nobody is allowed to say boo or they're "selfish." Something like 97% of the time if someone calls you selfish, they're a raging narcissist, and you should run, don't walk. Another 2% of the time or more, they're psychopaths.

 

P.P.P.S. Yeshua wasn't the Creator, so Christianity is a form of idolatry. In Reality worshipping as symbol as a symbol per se is fine. Worshipping Sol as allegorically the Creator is fine. Worshipping Zeus as a representative of the overflowing bounty of Creation is fine. Worshipping a symbol as if it were the thing itself is idolatry. Worshipping Sol as literally the Creator is false. Worshipping Zeus as literally king is false. 

Goes double in this case because Yeshua wasn't even allegorically the Creator. Yeshua was the archangel of mercy, the ruler of Chesed. Not Keter. At least, not during his mortal tenure. If Yeshua was promoted to Metatron, it was in fact usurpation, not coronation.

Bible literalism is idolatry and arises because Christianity is inherently idolatrous. When it isn't, it's compromising against its own core values. 

P.P.P.P.S. Call for "unity" are universalist, thus immoral and suicidal. If you want cooperation, pay for it, you irresponsible shitbags. Obviously it's a conqueror playing "nice" and putting their intent to conquer you "tactfully." Check: Lincoln is the unifier and Americans are obsessed with the Union, but in reality it was the War of Northern Aggression, a war of conquest and subjugation. Unity => subjugation, defection, deviance, treachery. Irresponsible. Dishonourable.

Things To Say Out Loud 2: Communism

Communism from crown to sole is about getting free shit. Acquiring goods without having to work for them. Everything else said about it is cope or gaslighting. Snow jobs or defensiveness.

This is why full communism means nobody works thus everyone starves.

General China Virus Take

I think they originally saw the virus as a chance to be seen being all manly and decisive. Willing to make the hard choices and force the populace to make sacrifices. Emphasis on "force" for Mandate of Heaven reasons. 

The problem is the virus turned out to be harmless. Killed only those who already had one foot in the grave. Because the lethality is so low it can afford to be outrageously infectious. This is almost completely normal for coronaviruses, by the way. If you had asked an epidemiologist in 2018 whether corona would go this way one day, they would have given you a frequency per century. Not a surprise to anyone who isn't totally ignorant of the domain. Naturally, "technocracy" means nobody thinks to ask.

Now the CCP is stuck taking extremely forceful measures to contain a nearly ineluctable virus. If they admit the virus is harmless, they lose face. "Yeah uh actually we fucked up. Oops." Even Americans have difficulty with that. Mandate of Heaven mores means uncertainty isn't allowed; CCP has no chance. 

Also there's probably some internal politics going on which I know nothing about. The idea was floated that they shut down some factories just to troll the USA's "supply chain" issues. This is hardly impossible but not exactly a leading contender. Still, it has the right flavour. Maybe it's more of an internal conflict. The dude in charge of lockdowns has a rival whose power base is in Shanghai, so he's locking down hard to try to shove them back a few places. Something of that nature. Maybe everyone in CCP needs a turn at being hard and manly. Hinky stuff going on.

Oh wait I get it.

Azov atrocities have a point. It's to motivate Azov to fight. The more atrociously they behave to Russian prisoners, the more they're afraid of being taken prisoner themselves. Cannot surrender in any form whatsoever.

I'd like to know how intentional this is. Accidental genius, or just what cowards have to do to themselves? Being brave isn't an option, they need to be more afraid of not fighting than of fighting.

Incentives vs. Traitor Mindset & American Negative Exceptionalism

Point 0: morality isn't really real. At most you can talk about upholding local mores - local customs are not "morality" in the modern/Christian sense.

"When considering things happening in the world, do you think primarily in terms of ‘incentive structures’ or ‘good and evil’?"
https://nitter.unixfox.eu/noxraptus/status/1506573634399313924

Personnel is policy and the obverse of Goodhart's law.

Incentives don't come from nowhere. In the end you can choose not to take the job. (Peasants are, of course, unaware of this brilliant, challenging insight.) If nobody takes the job because they can see the incentives are backwards, then the incentives don't drive behaviour, they destroy themselves.

What are the incentives to create certain incentive structures? It's not turtles all the way down. Ultimately someone decides. As was inevitable, Americans like to deny that lords exist, but it do. 

"There's nothing quite as evil as a rotten incentive structure."
https://nitter.unixfox.eu/Outsideness/status/1506604476677115905

Traitors construct rotten incentive structures. 

If you don't like an incentive structure you can declare war on it, raze it, and raise a new one. If war is not being declared, then alliance is being declared. Americanism is a traitor-supremacist social system, so instead war is declared against healthy incentive structures. Such as marriage. Such as having the law punish criminals. Such as allowing Gamestop short-sellers to lose money. Such as parents of a child hit by a car being able to sue the driver. 

Put another way: we have all these secular-materialist "incentive structures." Now, far be it from me to deny that (on peasants) incentive structures work. They really do drive behaviour. However, imagine someone who doesn't particularly value money. Your "incentive structure" just collapsed. It cannot control this person. 

The values come first. The mind, the conscious affinity for one future over another, comes first. The incentive structures come second. The incentive-definers define the incentives that buy the things they want. They design the incentives based on the values of the peasants they're controlling. Money is big, obvious, flashy, and short-term, so it works on peasants, so they use that.

In turn, peasant values come from religion. They come from a Pope. Americans are venal and materialist because they are raised to be venal and materialist, not because it's a universal divinely-ordained fact. Ref: every Amish man could make vastly more money if he stopped being Amish, but he repeatedly (wisely) chooses to remain. He is aware in his guts that being Amish is worth billions of dollars relative to being American; it's not a moral thing, America isn't offering enough money to make the switch profitable. 

Likewise Americans sometimes, despite everything, try to move toward being Amish due to the obvious superiority of more-Amish customs, but their head traitors notice this and make it illegal. Americans get the message and obediently stop trying. They want to be obedient more than they want their lives to not suck donkey shit.

In Reality, Adam's Invisible Hand is always in charge. The incentives that exist reflect the demand of the peoples who construct and maintain the incentive structure. Personnel is policy, and religion determines personnel. 

How do evil emperors get bodyguards? Shouldn't the prospective employees go all, "Actually I don't want to make Hitler safe. nthx bie" Resigning in protest is a thing. Why don't all his bodyguards resign in protest? Why didn't Enron have a catastrophic labour shortage? Even if someone takes the job, shouldn't they get ostracized by all their neighbours? Shouldn't they face "social consequences" or whatever they're calling it these days?

In Reality there is no shortage of evil men to take evil jobs. In Reality, the neighbours are evil too. The local more is evil. The emperor gets to rule because, on average, the subjects demand a defective traitor for the top spot. He would never have come anywhere near peak power if the society at large didn't broadly support him and his supporters. Further, the religion couldn't have made the peasants call for this if peasants weren't inherently compatible with defection and deviance.

From a bird's-eye view it's better to say that incentives don't drive behaviour. Desired behaviour drives incentives. Looking at the incentives informs you about values, which drive behaviour and drove the incentives. Americans want to be traitors, and want to be ruled by traitors. 

So, like, isn't it obvious? If you're not a traitor-supremacist, you need to reject this social order. You live in a society? Okay, well stop. That was dumb, don't do that. Participate only if overwhelming violence forces you to participate - then it's not your responsibility, and you won't be held responsible. Always look for ways to get out from under their thumb.

Explicitly, consciously, verbally declare them illegitimate.
Pray for protection.
Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's -  nothing.

If you choose to remain with the traitor society for any reason, that means you value treachery over not-treachery.
Well, certainly you are Free to have such a Will. It's a valid choice. You can always choose your decision. You don't get to choose the consequences, however. Turns out postmodernism is false actually.

P.S. Technically speaking peasants essentially have no values. They seem to have bad taste because they're incompetent at pretending to have good taste. They in fact have no taste at all, which is why it's so difficult for them. It never occurs to them that "taste" is a real thing and they can't really imagine what they're trying to imitate. When they inevitably fuck it up they can't tell the difference between what they're doing and what you're doing.

Exception: they have strict animalistic desires such as not getting trampled by the strong horse. Flesh-based reflexes. They don't like responsibility because they sense in their bones they're not responsible; they want to obey instead. Safer, because [not starting a fight with the local Big Man], and the actions taken are wiser on average. (Offer not valid in Global American Empire.) 

P.P.S. War of American Rebellion => traitors fighting for the right to break their oaths. They won, so America has always been a traitor-supremacist regime. Hence, ninth circle of hell. Satanism. The only reason America didn't immediately collapse is because they weren't very devout and furtively compromised their own Satanism in an amusing sort of Gnosticism. To Americans, the lord of this world, the demiurge, is Gnon. Gnon cruelly made the world punish envy, treachery, and deceit, rewarding instead cooperation and humility, so the Founding Mothers grudgingly put cooperative systems in place. Respected property rights here and there, if they really had to.

Luckily their descendants understood their inner intentions and have been systematically dismantling these compromises. Slowly, though, because defectors are defective. Can't concentrate and keep falling to infighting instead of getting on with it.

Sociology of Justice and Power

In America, it's simply taken for granted that the just shouldn't seek power. You can't even discuss it. Someone who seeks power is unjust, end of story.

Result: everyone who has power in America is unjust. All power is ceded to them without contest.

Gee, I wonder who thought of that idea originally. We may never know their motivation. The world is a mysterious place.

something something ghosts

Sanctioning Hollywood is so easy I could do it by myself, as a reminder. The only problem is they're likely to sanction me back and then I might need an ally to not die.

If you were e.g. Russia you could import me and then use me to sanction Hollywood - what are they going to do, withdraw Disney?
I wouldn't be thrilled about having a bunch of Russians as neighbours, but on the plus side they have a bunch of non-hideous architecture and I would be thrilled about the fact the sanctions would take a form that would make me millions or possibly billions of dollars. 

I'm not super thrilled about the neighbours I have now, to be fair. Kinda legitimately prefer grizzly bears to Caino hypocriens. Only real reason I'm not a hermit inna woods is because I'm addicted to technological comforts. Grew up with the wrong kind of stimulation. Secondarily I have a weak stomach and probably can't butcher my own meat, and yet I'm unwilling to live solely on plants. I look around the world, but I don't see anyone I would be excited to hear was moving next door. Very sympathetic to Musk's desire to live on Mars instead.

Folk like Singaporeans and Japanese actually suppress crime, so while they're insufferable the same way everyone is, it's at least calm and peaceful. Also I hear the Singaporeans speak English, among their other three official languages.